HARMFUL IMPRESSIONS

That Stephen Harper minimized the role of harm reduction in his new
drug strategy, while continuing to promote old and disproved
criticisms, shows just how misunderstood the harm-reduction model still is.

The prime minister invoked a familiar non-answer to a question about
harm reduction at his press conference last week. He's all for "harm
reduction," he suggested, in the sense that treatment, prevention and
enforcement all reduce harm. Yes, those things are all good, but
"harm reduction" refers to programs such as needle exchanges,
methadone clinics and alcohol management -- programs that contain the
addiction problem and reduce the spread of disease.

The prime minister did the field of public health a disservice by
dismissing harm reduction approaches. "I remain a skeptic that you
can tell people that we won't even stop the drug trade, we won't get
you off drugs, we won't even send messages to discourage drug use but
somehow we will keep you addicted but reduce the harm just the same."

This is not what these programs do, and the prime minister, who's a
smart man, ought to know that. Safe-injection sites, for example, can
be places for addicts to learn about detox programs, places for
social workers to get the messages of well-meaning city councillors
and MPs out to the people who need it -- people who spend their time
in alleys and stairwells and don't watch a lot of public-service announcements.

It would be absurd for the government to outlaw nicotine gum and
patches in the belief they send the message that it's OK to be
addicted to nicotine. Yet that's exactly the logic the government
applies to illegal drugs. Nicotine-replacement therapy helps some
smokers ease themselves off cigarettes. A small drink once an hour
helps alcoholics get off the gallons of hard stuff. It's pretty hard
to think about treatment options when you're shaking.

The federal government regulates the manufacture of cigarettes. It
requires, for example, all cigarettes to meet an ignition propensity
standard, to make it less likely that smokers will light their
mattresses on fire. That doesn't mean the government wants people to
smoke in bed. It means that if people are going to smoke in bed, at
least we should try to reduce the chance that they'll burn down their
neighbours' houses.

Similarly, a clean crack pipe does not send a message that's OK to
smoke crack, in bed for anywhere else. It reduces the chances that
the crack-smoker will spread AIDS and hepatitis to the community.

The federal government must, at least, get out of the way of
provinces and municipalities that want to implement harm-reduction
programs. And it has a responsibility to stop feeding the
misconceptions about what can be a valuable approach.

Mr. Harper's plan includes a chunk of money for enforcement, and
mandatory minimums for some drug offenses, which will remove judges'
discretion in dealing with real-life stories. Yet to his credit Mr.
Harper did emphasize that what many addicts need is help, not
punishment, and his $32 million for treatment programs is welcome.
Now Mr. Harper needs also to recognize that harm reduction is simply
another way of helping this ill and tormented population.